ANCHETA V.

ANCHETA
G.R. No. 145370 03/04/2004

ISSUE:

Whether or not the declaration of the marriage between Marietta and Rodolfo is
valid despite the failure of the public prosecutor to conduct an investigation on
whether there was collusion between the said parties and to order the Solicitor
General to appear for the State. NO

FACTS:

Marietta and Rodolfo were married in 1959. In 1992, Rodolfo left the conjugal home
and abandoned Marietta and their children. Two years after, Marietta filed a
complaint for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership and judicial separation of
property with a plea for support and support pendente lite. At that time, Marietta
lived in Las Pinas. The parties entered into a compromise agreement wherein their
property located in Carmona, Cavite was adjudicated to Marietta and her children.
The court rendered judgment based on the compromise agreement. Conformably
thereto, Marietta and her children moved and began residence at the said Carmona
property.

In 1995, Rodolfo, wanting to marry again, filed a case for the declaration of nullity of
his marriage with the Marietta on the ground of psychological incapacity. Although
the Rodolfo knew that the Marietta was already residing in Carmona, Cavite, he,
nevertheless, alleged in his petition that the Marietta was residing at No. 72 CRM
Avenue corner CRM Corazon, BF Homes, Almanza, Las Piñas, Metro Manila. The
sheriff served the summons and a copy of the petition by substituted service on the
the parties’ son, Venancio Mariano B. Ancheta III, at his residence in Bancal,
Carmona, Cavite.

Marietta failed to file an answer and was declared in default. Rodolfo was allowed
adduce evidence ex-parte. On July 7, 1995, the trial court issued an Order granting
the petition and declaring the marriage of the parties void ab initio. The clerk of
court issued a Certificate of Finality of the Order of the court on July 16, 1996.

On July 7, 2000, the Marietta filed a verified petition against the Rodolfo with the
Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, as amended, for the annulment
of the order of the RTC.

Marietta, alleged, among others, that the order of the trial court nullifying her and
the Rodolfo’s marriage was null and void for the court a quo’s failure to order the
public prosecutor to conduct an investigation on whether there was collusion
between the parties, and to order the Solicitor General to appear for the State.

RULING:
The records show that for the petitioner’s failure to file an answer to the complaint,
the trial court granted the motion of the respondent herein to declare her in default.
The public prosecutor condoned the acts of the trial court when he interposed no
objection to the motion of the respondent. The trial court forthwith received the
evidence of the respondent ex-parte and rendered judgment against the petitioner
without a whimper of protest from the public prosecutor. The actuations of the trial
court and the public prosecutor are in defiance of Article 48 of the Family Code,
which reads:

Article 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage,

the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on
behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take
care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.
In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shall be based
upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment.

The trial court and the public prosecutor also ignored Rule 18, Section 6 of the 1985
Rules of Court (now Rule 9, Section 3[e] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) which
provides:
Sec. 6. No defaults in actions for annulment of marriage or for legal separation.— If
the defendant in an action for annulment of marriage or for legal separation fails to
answer, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not
a collusion between the parties exits, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the
State in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated.

In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals, this Court laid down the guidelines in the
interpretation and application of Art. 48 of the Family Code, one of which concerns
the role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as
counsel for the State:

(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor
General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless
the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision,
briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may
be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall
submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case
is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall
discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon
1095.

The task of protecting marriage as an inviolable social institution requires vigilant

and zealous participation and not mere pro-forma compliance. The protection of
marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the defense of a true and genuine
union but the exposure of an invalid one as well.
A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation by default is fraught with the
danger of collusion. Hence, in all cases for annulment, declaration of nullity of
marriage and legal separation, the prosecuting attorney or fiscal is ordered to
appear on behalf of the State for the purpose of preventing any collusion between
the parties and to take care that their evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. If the
defendant-spouse fails to answer the complaint, the court cannot declare him or her
in default but instead, should order the prosecuting attorney to determine if
collusion exists between the parties. The prosecuting attorney or fiscal may oppose
the application for legal separation or annulment through the presentation of his
own evidence, if in his opinion, the proof adduced is dubious and fabricated.

Our constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the family as a basic

social institution. Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere
contract, but a social institution in which the State is vitally interested. The State can
find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy families. The break-up of
families weakens our social and moral fabric; hence, their preservation is not the
concern of the family members alone. Whether or not a marriage should continue to
exist or a family should stay together must not depend on the whims and caprices of
only one party, who claims that the other suffers psychological imbalance,
incapacitating such party to fulfill his or her marital duties and obligations (Ancheta
vs. Ancheta, G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004).